Median sportiness was 46.2, and with everyone pretty laser focus on that as its the only singular stat in the three star category, the strength of the entries meant less than a 44 and you were almost guaranteed a bottom half finish.
And that is precisely why I personally donât do linear-relative scoring in challenges.
1 Like
I donât see what the alternative is. Sportiness is not tangible. I canât look at a real car review and walk away saying â35 sportinessâ
You said it yourself at some point, replicating RL cars and seeing how sportiness or any other stat should pan out helps. In my scoring systems, I tend to have a âvalue below which youâre outâ and a "value above which you donât get more points, with a 0 to 1 log scale in between: For example, in ARM15, you were binned under like 40 (?) comfort and didnât get any further benefit above like 85, because the carâs supposed to be plush but thereâs a limit to how much comfort is actually discernable - and you got around 70% of the score at the halfway point, which would have been 62.5. That way laser-focus cars which miss the spirit of the challenge fail.
I would recommend utilizing the ârankâ function for spreadsheet columns, and then assign each rank a point value. In my QFC13, I did this by ranking the top 10 of any category with up 10 points down to 1, and then the bottom 10 were negative to -10. Three star priorities got 150% value to the rank points (so, winner was 15pts), two star was 100%, and one star was 50%. Took all the ranks with their points, and thatâs how I got my standing from 24th place to 1st (on the objective side.)
I donât really recommend the negative point idea, wonât be doing that in the future. But setting rank and rank points worked well. You could do it with some different weight factor of course, just depends on what priorities matter. For instance, 1st rank in a big category could be worth quite a lot.
That said, it is your show to run my friend!
1 Like
I used exactly this system for performance figures, because they are concrete. Sportiness is not and pretty much needs to viewed relative, but that is also when drivability and comfort matter, or else someone could just build something with race suspension and walk away with it all.
hey what was so bad about the styling for the MT Wave I think it looks nice I spent a while on the design
I guess doing a psuedo American V8 in a European chassis didnât really help. Maybe Iâll see if I can go back and improve the economy just to see if I can.
Edit: @donutsnail any advice for future comps?
The color scheme is way off for 1977, as are the size and shape of the wheels; the haphazard and overly simplistic front end (which consists of just five fixtures all told, as far as I am aware) doesnât help. Also, the body choice doesnât scream âsupercarâ or even âsports carâ like some others do.
Youâre telling me that a 4 cylinder was somehow more sportier than all of the binned cars here?
Just look at all the Lotusâ that existed in this time period.
The other cars donât look like they have more than seven fixtures, is this the power of âbody moldingâ I hear often?
@Vento, @xsneakyxsimx, and anyone else looking for more in-depth feedback, once I have the rest of the reviews out we can speak more about your cars in the submission PM.
well, sportiness isnt just raw power
Given the apparent glut of cars with 50+ sportiness, Iâm definitely looking forward to seeing what compromises, particularly in comfort and drivability, were made.
P.S. you forgot to list the price for my car, Donut
Itâs not just the use of body moldings, itâs their shape, size and placement (as well as those of various other fixtures) that contributes to a carâs overall aesthetics score.
If youâre sure that you wonât take it too hard if I am being honest and a bit harsh, but still constructive and helpful, I can send you a PM when I come home, OK with that? As both me and others have noticed, you can make great cars, and it is a shame if they should keep being binned for the styling being subpar, because I am sure you can improve.
I came up with a stripped-down, sportier trim of my entry - the Archer 500 CS. Here it is:
CS on left, base car on right
The CS is lighter, with stiffer suspension and wider tires, along with a more aggressive setup for the brakes, transmission and aerodynamics to exploit it. Itâs cheaper, too, although it sacrifices some comfort (sports interior, standard 70s safety, and premium 8-track player instead of luxury interior, advanced 80s safety, and luxury cassette player) to achieve this. In addition to the lighter interior, the CS lacks power steering. The result is over 53 sportiness (compared to the 40 for the original), although sportiness decreases to 17.0 (from the base carâs figure of 33).
Round Two Reviews
Weâre in the sharp end now, so I have to start getting a bit nit-picky to choose between the cars. Try not to take any of this criticism too hard.
ART ONE
$45,800
3.0 H6T DOHC 24 valve SPEFI
349 hp @ 5900 rpm
0-100: 3.7s
1320ft: 11.95s
vmax: 275 kmh
A good but not great car. Across the board fairly middle of the road stats outside of fast acceleration and high price, aside from quite poor reliability (48.7).
Fanella Fuego GT
$34,000
3.6 V6 DOHC 24 valve MFI
0-100: 5s
1320ft: 13.15s
vmax: 262 kmh
A very sporty and fairly affordable sports car with incredible sportiness and quite good fuel economy. Quite a looker too; I rated this 2nd on looks. Unfortunately, worst in test comfort (4.8) means this car can go no further.
Aquila 508 GTO Quattrovalvole
$42,700
5.0 V8 DOHC 32 valve MFI
527 hp @ 8000 rpm
0-100: 3.2s
1320ft: 11.10s
vmax: 312 kmh
The fastest and sportiest entry, but with poor comfort (9.8), worst in test reliability by a wide margin (43.7), and eyewatering service costs (4932.9), the Aquila is a super car that is perhaps too much super and not quite enough car.
FMC Harrier 4.5
$41,200
4.5 V8 DOHC 32 valve MPEFI
361 hp @ 6400 rpm
0-100: 4.5s
1320ft: 12.66s
vmax: 287 kmh
A strong entry. No major problems, but for the cost, it should be better, and I am not personally a fan of the looks of the front. Service costs are not among the highest, but still a quite high 2830.6.
TIO - Hawk MF-12
$49,500
5.6 V12 DOHC 48 valve MFI
426 hp @ 6600 rpm
0-100: 3.9s
1320ft: 11.82s
vmax: 288 kmh
A tremendous beast with a high price, high service costs, high fuel consumption. A rather large and powerful engine doesnât prevent this car from scoring fairly well on comfort and drivability, but 47.8 reliability is quite poor.
RAUK Vanir
$36,400
2.3 I4 DOHC 16 valve MFI
208 hp @ 6800 rpm
0-100: 5.7s
1320ft: 13.98s
vmax: 254 kmh
Like the FMC, a good all-arounder that doesnât really have weaknesses; it simply just isnât as strong as more affordable or more stylish options. Styling is attractive, but too simplistic in the rear. Fuel economy is best in test (9.2 l/100km).
Tauscher 260T Turbo
$35,100
2.6 V8T Flatplane DOHC 32 valve MPEFI
436 hp @ 6700 rpm
0-100s: 3.6s
1320ft: 11.23s
vmax: 288 kmh
A very fast car for a pretty good price. Surprisingly cheap running costs for the power. Styling is too derivative for me, and drivability is 2nd worst in test (36.1).
Thorn 229
$31,000
2.9 V8 Flatplane DOHC 32 valve MFI
251 hp @ 6700
0-100s: 4.9s
1320ft: 13.39s
vmax: 244 kmh
Yet another solid entry; no real weaknesses, but no major strengths either. Simply outshown by cheaper and/or more styling entries. Quite like the taillight design but most of the car could stand to have a bit more flair.
Nopresco Primus RT370
$29,800
3.7 V6 DOHC 24 valve 4 barrel
258 @ 6700 hp
0-100s: 4.9s
1320ft: 13.15s
vmax: 271 kmh
Tops on drivability, yet still a very strong sportiness score. Performance is good too. Style unfortunately is not to my taste, and service costs are higher than most other low-cost entries.
Swanson 937CPC
$32,900
3.7 H6 DOHC 24 valve 2x2 barrel
252 hp @ 6300 rpm
0-100s: 4.4s
1320ft: 12.78s
vmax: 260 kmh
A really impressive stat sheet on this one, with great drivability, comfort, and reliability. Sportiness is just a bit outshown by cheaper options, and the styling doesnât really work for me.
Courageux Visage-i
$30,200
2.7 V6 SOHC 12 valve MFI
193 hp @ 6500 rpm
0-100: 5.34s
1320ft: 13.86s
vmax: 220 kmh
A modern, if a bit downmarket, appearing 2+2. Power is on the low end for this crowd, but performance figures are still in range. Strong reliability, but just a bit low on sportiness or style to get further.
Montebianco V6 2.5-165
$28,700
2.5 V6 SOHC 12 valve 2xDCOE
165 hp @ 6500 rpm
0-100: 6.78s
1320ft: 15.19s
vmax: 240 kmh
The least powerful entry with the slowest acceleration figures, but still manages to make it into the top 5 for sportiness. Affordable with affordable service costs, middling fuel economy, good drivability and reliability. Acceleration figures on on the slow end, but still within the expected bounds based on the inspirations. A strong contender but styling is a big let down. A bit more power isnât necessary, but when there is a cheaper entry with better fuel economy, a lot more power, and more interesting styling, I canât choose this car over that one.
SAETA Lince
$31,000
1.8 I4T DOHC 8 valve MPEFI
207 hp @ 5700 rpm
0-100: 5.47s
1320ft: 13.86s
vmax: 223 kmh
A very quirky and very cool looking 2+2 with a small turbocharged engine. My 3rd favorite on appearance; its unique and well detailed and it looks better the more you look at it although I think the proportions of this body make it hard not to look downmarket. An affordable car with the cheapest running costs by far (1127.5) and almost tying for best fuel economy, low comfort (13.9) is its only major weakpoint.
Zephorus Stelvio
$52,300
5.0 V12 DOHC 48 valve MPEFI
482 hp @ 7500 rpm
0-100: 3.7s
1320ft: 11.47s
vmax: 307 kmh
A stunner on appearance, easily my favorite on looks, and by some margin. Unlike a few other high-power options, reliability is fairly good, as are drivability and comfort. Interestingly, also 2nd highest safety of all. Simply, costs are killer here. Price is high, and running costs very high (4446.0).
Cepheus Sceptre 624i
$28,300
3.6 H6 DOHC 24 valve MFI
297 hp @ 6500 rpm
0-100: 5.11s
1320ft: 13.27s
vmax: 276 kmh
An easy choice for the winner. While it isnât the most beautiful entry, to look at, itâs stats are a thing of beauty: 3rd place overall on sportiness, 55.2, a mere .4 less than the Zephorus, at nearly half the price. A very healthy 297 hp with solid performance and solid reliability. Drivability and comfort are still fairly good at 44.9 and 22.0, respectively. This car has no weaknesses, and to do so while being the lowest upfront price, below median svc costs, and below median fuel consumption. Just incredible work, well done.
Final rank:
Etc. Reviews for this half are in rank order.
14 Likes
Would you be able to tell me what choice/s i made that made my car so expensive. I didnt even think about the price while engineering it.
@Vento, when I find out you will too.
@donutsnail that was a great challenge chief, i had a lot of fun